I don’t want to argue any further, but since others are now reading this thread too, I would like to clarify one point where I may have oversimplified a bit for sake of argument. Namely, the mutual dependency of nāmarūpa and viññāṇa. I wish to clarify it is not purely about rebirth. I focused on that aspect here, since the topic is on avakkanti, which, as I explained, I do think is purely about rebirth. But of course the mutual dependency of consciousness and nāmarūpa continues after birth as well, and stands until the enlightened one passes away. Still, central to the idea is rebirth, which is obvious from the passage in the womb and others I quoted. The mutual dependency is about what kind of sentient existence there can be, basically. There is on the one hand no existence of pure consciousness without other factors, and on the other hand no existence without consciousness.
And existence starts at birth, that’s why rebirth is central.
I hope that makes sense. Perhaps there were some other slight simplifications on my side as well, since, again, I was mainly concerned with the topic at hand, namely avakkanti. We got dragged around a bit but I tried to sort of stay on that topic without mentioning all little nuances. If any misunderstandings arise because of this, I apologize.
Readers may also be interested in this essay, which is also on the topic of nāmarūpa and viññāṇa: Viññāṇa anidassana: the state of boundless consciousness. Here the dependency of the factors is sometimes ignored by certain interpretations who say there is a consciousness that stays after nāmarūpa ceases. I suggest an alternative interpretation of the passages in question, a reading which actually reinforces the dependency.